Concerning the topic of higher education for sustainable development, Rieckmann (2012) and Barth et al. (2007) have addressed key competences for sustainable development. These studies consider future-oriented higher education through the promotion of different types of thinking: a systematic type, an anticipatory type and a critical type. Barth (2011) has also addressed the integration of sustainability in education through changes in higher education; while Barth et al. (2011) have addressed the students’ points of view on higher education as an innovative approach to make changes to education. Among other issues, it has been identified the challenge of transfer sustainable development approaches to universities (Adomssent et al., 2007), analysis of a transdisciplinary approach to teaching sustainability (Scholz et al., 2006) and the ethics of sustainability addressed by Biedenweg et al. (2013). In the case of the Technical University of the North of Ecuador, Barth and Rieckmann (2012) addressed the role of academic staff in guiding higher education towards a sustainable development approach. The study confirmed that competencies of academic staff are an essential prerequisite to achieve a paradigm shift in the approach of higher education for sustainable development. Peer et al. (2011) have addressed the role of universities as agents of change for sustainability. They conducted two case studies on the analysis of infrastructure for waste and energy management, highlighting the contribution of universities to local and regional development. These studies considered a conceptual framework based on the theory of teaching-planning-implementation. Bauer et al. (2018) recognize that Higher Education Institutions are not only virtual locations, but actual buildings that present their own sustainability challenges, stating as for example resource procurement and supply chain management, energy use and waste disposal.

According to Velázquez (2006), the focus of "sustainability on campus" is a recent debate in the discussion of strategies for promoting sustainability in universities. While some projects, programs or initiatives in education, research and communication are being implemented since the early seventies, sustainability initiatives on campus begun until the late nineties. With this research it is expected to expand the knowledge on the adaptation of campuses management and built environment toward a more sustainable system, considering the statement of Sonetti et al (2015) when highlighting the role of management capacities for a social responsibility transition. 

The general objective of the research is to create a holistic “Sustainable University” model that enables an “ideal” university campus and built environment as a living laboratory for territorial development. This objective will be addressed through the definition of tools and methodologies for the comparison of sustainable university campuses and its institutional decision-making mechanisms when considering the higher education for sustainable development approach. 

As stated previously, though higher education for sustainable development (HESD) has been approached broadly, it has been little addressed the role of territorial management in the context of HESD and its relationship with the concept of “sustainable campus”. Against this background, a Systematic Literature Review is being conducted to address the following research question: “What are the main and common variables that typify a holistic management model of an ’ideal’ sustainable university campus as a living laboratory for territorial development?”. The specific objective of the systematic literature review is to identify the State-of-the-art in the scientific debate of the relationship between the university campus-built environment characteristics and territorial management under the umbrella of higher education for sustainable development. 

Birkeland (2008) addresses the relationship between the built environment and the natural environment and proposes the concept of "positive development". This concept includes the transition from current “vicious” cycles to future “virtuous” cycles through the design of the built environment. From the perspective of the built environment, sustainability is a design problem, since most negative impacts are caused by the physical and institutional design. On this sense, the solution to problems associated with sustainable development can also be reversed by design and facility management. Most institutional environmental management tools that seek to solve problems are part of systems planning, design and management that undermine or discourage good practice. These tools are still paying attention to the symptoms of the problems, such as pollution and waste, instead of addressing the causes of those problems and correct them through appropriate design and administration systems. The redesign of the built environment needs systems and decision tools to promote diversity, adaptability and reversibility (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) in Birkeland, 2008). A new architecture is essential for a biophysical and social sustainability. According to the author, the built environment is responsible for the largest share of energy consumption, a large proportion of raw material extraction, toxic landfills, production of packaging waste and the emission of greenhouse gases. Also, the built environment contributes to the consolidation of problems such as deforestation, climate change, soil erosion, air pollution, water scarcity and biodiversity loss. These problems cannot be prevented or reversed with the current territorial development model, because this model depends to some extent on territorial management capacities and on how the built environment is designed, including the number of resources, space and energy consumption needed for today and for the future. The objectives of the systematic literature review will be attended with reference to the PICOS process. The PICO process (or framework) is a mnemonic used in evidence-based practice (and specifically Evidence Based Medicine) to frame and answer a clinical or health care related question. The PICO framework is also used to develop literature search strategies as systematic reviews. This review will allow to analyze the current trend to connect the context of a university sustainability campus initiative with its urban and territorial surroundings, specifically considering the initiatives or projects that has been implemented as “living laboratories”.

Many Campus Sustainability Assessments (CSAs) have been proposed in the search of an “ideal tool” that could guide sustainability measurement methodologies. Shriberg in Sonetti et al (2015) concluded that many environmental and sustainability campus assessment tools provide the grounds for strategic planning; however, they do not provide comparison mechanisms and they predominantly are focused on material utilization, CO2 emissions and regulatory compliance. The author emphasizes that “measuring sustainability requires a major leap beyond the energy efficiency paradigm, addressing social, economic and environmental impacts.” The study seeks to analyze the relationship between the university campus management and built environment characteristics within the higher education for sustainable development approach. The expected results include the analysis of the available literature on the university campus as living laboratories for sustainable development. The study refers to a sustainable development definition that has an institutional and international background. The definition of “sustainable development” could also be linked to a concept of one university when it is part of an institutional project. The study also expects the inclusion of the concept of education for sustainable development in higher education institutions related to the definition established by United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization -UNESCO-, and refers to the implementation of a "sustainability" project within the university campus or to the definition of "sustainable university campus" established in previous publications.

• Adomssent, M. Godemann, J. and Michelsen G. (2007) Transferability of approaches to sustainable development at universities as a challenge. Emerald International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. • Barth, M.; Godemann, J.; Rieckmann, M. and Stoltenberg U. (2007) Developing key competencies for sustainable development in higher education. Emerald International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. • Barth, M. (2011) Many roads lead to sustainability: A process-oriented analysis of change in higher education. RMIT University. Australia. • Barth, M. and Timm, J. (2011) Higher Education for Sustainable Development: Students Perspectives on an Innovative Approach to Educational Change. Journal of Social Sciences. • Barth, M. and Rieckmann, M. (2012) Academic staff development as a catalyst for curriculum change towards education for sustainable development: an output perspective. Elsevier. Journal of Cleaner Production. • Bauer, M.; Bormann, I.; Kummer, B.; Niedlich, S. and Rickmann, M. (2018) Sustainability Governance at Universities: Using a Governance Equalizer as a Research Heuristic. Higher Education Policy. • Biedenweg, K. Monroe, M. Oxarart, A. (2013) The importance of teaching ethics of sustainability. Emerald International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. • Birkeland, J. (2008) Positive Development, from vicious circles to virtuous cycles through built environment design. Earthscan. • Sonetti, G.; Lombardi, P.; Chelleri, L. (2015) True Green and Sustainable University Campuses? Toward a Clusters Approach. • Kyburz-Graber, R. (2015) Case Study Research on Higher Education for Sustainable Development. Routledge Handbook of Higher Education for Sustainable Development. • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. • Moher D, Liberati A, Terzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta- Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med • Peer, V. and Stoeglehner, G. (2013) Universities as change agents for sustainability framing the role of knowledge transfer and generation in regional development processes. Elsevier Journal of Cleaner Production. • Rieckmann, M. (2012). Future oriented higher education: Which key competencies should be fostered through university teaching and learning? Elsevier. Futures. • Scholz, R.; Lang, D.; Wiek, A.; Walter, A. and Stauffacher, M. (2006) Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability learning. Historical framework and theory. Emerald International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. • Velazquez, L.; Munguia, N.; Platt, A.; Taddei, J. (2006). Sustainable university: what can be the matter? Journal of Cleaner Production ELSEVIER.